The sad thing is that most average internet users have no idea what SOPA or PIPA are and don't understand why it's a big deal.

Like me, I had no idea what this was about until today.

Is this kind of like when they shut down those streaming websites or tried to?

_________________

Follow me on Twitter: @W2G4U

January 20th, 2012, 2:27 am

LionsFan4Life

Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pmPosts: 2205Location: Austin, TX

Re: SOPA / PIPA

Lions2SB2 wrote:

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

The sad thing is that most average internet users have no idea what SOPA or PIPA are and don't understand why it's a big deal.

Like me, I had no idea what this was about until today.

Is this kind of like when they shut down those streaming websites or tried to?

That plus it gives the govt. power to shut down sites they don't want the American people seeing.

_________________

NEVER GIVE UP!

January 20th, 2012, 9:18 am

Ferris

Pro Bowl Player

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pmPosts: 2478Location: Michigan

Re: SOPA / PIPA

I usually keep my conspiracy side quiet. For my own sanity. But let's see, A military that spent the last several years understanding population control in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spiraling debt issues, gold buying shops on every corner, the patriot act. Shut off the search engines right around the time the Dollar is losing support as the "gold standard" for world monetary stability.

It all makes sense if you've been paying attention to what all the smartest investment minds have been saying for the last couple years. This country is on the verge of a complete melt down. IMO. The loss of the search engines is an attempt to stop the panic that is going to set in. Never ever thought this would happen to be honest, but Im guessing this is the beginning of something very bad.

The sad thing is that most average internet users have no idea what SOPA or PIPA are and don't understand why it's a big deal.

Like me, I had no idea what this was about until today.

Is this kind of like when they shut down those streaming websites or tried to?

In a way, yes. The stated goal of the legislation is to prevent/stop copyright infringement and intellectual property theft. But, it's a terrible piece of legislation. Here's just one example of how this could work:

SOPA requires that, once served notice of a violation (a user hosting copyrighted material on their website for example), internet providers must monitor the usage of their customers and if said customer does not comply and remove the material, the ISP must block those websites. But, it doesn't have to be proven to be a violation of copyright. All it has to be is an allegation. So, any person or organization can allege that your website is in violation, and the gov't can then require it be taken down, and if you don't take it down, they can just block the website. No questions asked, no rebuttal. It's draconian and a violation of free speech.

So, let's say for example that someone posts a picture on this website, and that picture is alleged to be copyrighted. If that picture wasn't removed, the government could shut down Lionbacker, no questions asked.

This is a very tricky thing, and the people writing this law have no idea what they're doing. Case in point, the author of the bill, Congressman Lamar Smith, has copyright infringement on his own website. Here's a link showing it:

So, according to SOPA the original photographer could go after Congressman Smith and force him to remove the picture and/or take his website down. Also, I believe he is entitled to compensation for his image being used on the website without his permission. There are many other examples like this.

Luckily, neither bill has a chance in hell of passing. While most copyrighted material should be protected, the language of these bills is too broad. As Touchdown Jesus just alluded to, if the government took one look at the pictures I've posted in the Girly Thread, Lionbacker would be no more. This would also apply to articles from Mlive, Detroit News, ESPN, etc. that were copied and pasted into a post. We would have to say goodbye to YouTube, Facebook, Photobucket, and pretty much every site on the entire internet if the government actually enforced every aspect of this law.

Luckily, neither bill has a chance in hell of passing. While most copyrighted material should be protected, the language of these bills is too broad. As Touchdown Jesus just alluded to, if the government took one look at the pictures I've posted in the Girly Thread, Lionbacker would be no more. This would also apply to articles from Mlive, Detroit News, ESPN, etc. that were copied and pasted into a post. We would have to say goodbye to YouTube, Facebook, Photobucket, and pretty much every site on the entire internet if the government actually enforced every aspect of this law.

WASHINGTON – Congressional leaders announced Friday that they are putting controversial anti-online piracy legislation on the backburner, amid widespread objections from the tech community and others.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said he will postpone an upcoming vote on his chamber's proposal. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, quickly followed suit, saying consideration of a similar House bill would be postponed "until there is wider agreement on a solution."

Earlier in the week, major websites and Internet companies protested the proposal. Wikipedia blacked out its site for a day, while Google circulated a petition that generated more than seven million signatures. The White House also raised concerns about the proposal over the weekend, though later claimed the president was not taking sides.

Reid said in a statement that "in light of recent events," he would postpone a test vote that had been set for Tuesday. He said he's "optimistic" lawmakers can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.

"There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved," he said. "Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day's work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio."

As Smith pulled his bill, House Speaker John Boehner acknowledged Friday that he had asked the committee chairman to work to build more "consensus" on the proposal.

At least a half-dozen senators who sponsored the measure now say they oppose it. All GOP presidential candidates also expressed opposition to the proposal in Thursday night's debate.

The proposal would give the Justice Department new authority to seek court orders against foreign websites accused of copyright infringement. The Senate's version is called the Protect IP Act; the House's version is called the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The Protect Intellectual Property Act has strong support from the entertainment industry and other businesses that lose billions of dollars annually to intellectual property theft and online sales of counterfeit products. But it also has strong opposition from Internet-related companies that argue the bill would lead to over-regulation and censorship of the Internet.

The Tuesday vote was on whether to move the legislation to the Senate floor for debate. With the recent desertions and a statement Thursday by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell that it is too early to consider the bill, it appeared supporters lacked the 60 votes needed to advance the measure in the100-member chamber.

President Obama over the weekend appeared to share those concerns, but White House Press Secretary Jay Carney later said the administration is not taking sides and is just trying to find the right balance.

"Our firm belief is that we need to do something about online piracy by foreign websites, but we need to do it in a way that does not impinge upon a free and open Internet," he said.

Wags, I saw that video a few weeks ago. While I don't think Hollywierd initially set out to get legislation like this approved, it's apparent that they saw the opportunity to do so at some point during the course of events. Regardless, it's just another example of crony capitalism where the government determines the winners and losers. In the end, everyone loses when that happens.

_________________

January 20th, 2012, 7:14 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: SOPA / PIPA

slybri19 wrote:

Wags, I saw that video a few weeks ago. While I don't think Hollywierd initially set out to get legislation like this approved, it's apparent that they saw the opportunity to do so at some point during the course of events. Regardless, it's just another example of crony capitalism where the government determines the winners and losers. In the end, everyone loses when that happens.

To be honest, after viewing that video I'm thinking more along the lines of entrapment; considering as they not only provided the software, but advertised it as a piracy tool and now they want to prosecute people using the tools THEY provided for the purposes THEY provided it for.

Wags, I completely understand what you're saying, and that's what the video was attempting to convey. However, that would be a Ron Paul-ish conspiracy theory and I don't think that's the case here. Look at it this way - what industry had the experience and technology to transfer audio and video the most efficiently once the internet began to grow? IMO, they used that to their advantage to make even more money until the rest of the world caught up to them. At that point, they had to come up with something else and decided to supress that technology instead. Of course, I could be completely wrong here, but that makes the most sense to me.